delete_mate

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the destructive effect (components are free to move again), the batch semantics with one rebuild, and the return content. It does not state irreversibility or what happens if a name is not found.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then bulk semantics, then return behavior. The parenthetical pointers are compact and each sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With one parameter and no output schema, the description covers input sourcing, bulk behavior, side effects, and return values, which is enough to invoke it correctly. Error cases and the suppress-vs-delete distinction are the remaining gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that the single 'name' parameter accepts either one name or a list, and that a list deletes all at once with one rebuild. It adds meaning beyond the anyOf schema, though it doesn't address matching rules or duplicates.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Delete a mate") scoped to the current assembly and keyed by name, which separates it from delete_component and the geometry siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with suppress_mate, the nearest non-destructive alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Tells the agent where names come from (list_components, or add_mate's 'mate') and documents the bulk form as deleting everything with a single rebuild, which is real usage guidance. It offers no explicit when-not or "use suppress_mate instead if you want to keep the mate" routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.